Met Office warns of need for drastic cuts in greenhouse gases from 2010
• 3% a year may keep temperature rise to 2C
• Study says inaction could have dire consequences

Carbon Output Grew in 2007 increase of 2.5% "Average annual growth since 2000 is about four times the mean in the 1990s."

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants
"it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants"

39.7% – New European Record Efficiency for Solar Cells acheived

Arctic 'methane chimneys' raise fears of runaway climate change

NB - not yet published in peer reviewed journal

Mark Lynas is in many ways right about nuclear. If we manage to avoid RCC in the next10 years and want to maintain an economy and society that is as similar to the one we have now then nuclear power, whether using current, fastbreeder or fusion technology would be useful. However, we should concentrate on actions that can help us avoid getting locked into RCC and then have a debate about what kind of energy system we want and whether centralised, nuclear stations can play a role in it. If we do succeed in getting to this point my own view is that a decentralised system in which power is generated near to where it is used, will be a major contributor to that success and that we should continue down this road. Others who want things to continue more like they are now will support new nuclear, I just hope that we get the chance to have this discussion which is why I don't want to be distracted by nuclear now.

What the people at the top of the wealth and power pyramid will do when when we pass RCC tipping point ?

• make a fortune from geo engineering techno fixes, that we will pay for
• invest heavily in personal protection (gated communities in low risk areas)
• live an equally, or even more comfortable existence with much greater share of wealth and power than before.

Why would any of these people take action to stop climate change? They'd be much more likely to try and give the appearance of action to delay until it was too late.

Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of the cost of climate change correctly exposes a serious fiction in most government's rhetoric - that current plans, which will do very little to address the problem, may well be a waste of money. Politicians need to be honest that, on some measures, the monetary costs and benefits of inaction and effective action may well be very similar. The real issue is what this view of cost misses out, the damage and destruction that can't be quantified or, from a purely economic standpoint is worth very little because it happens to poor people. The truth is that the people at the top of the economic and political systems have no motivation to take any action, they won't lose out and many may even benefit from the crisis. That is why can't leave it up to them.

University of Sunderland proudly announced a breakthrough in hydrogen powered car techology. The problem with hydrogen is that it uses far less energy to use any electricity directly to power a car, rather than turning it into hydrogen first. However, after exchanging few emails with the project manager i'm slightly less cynical. His argument is that a small tank of hydrogen produced from renewable energy can add a 'quick fill' capacity to extend the range of the battery, rather than instead of it. Also the efficiency of hydrogen production can be improved with this kind of research. My conclusion is that we can dismiss solutions ideas too easily as unrealistic techno-fixes. In fact many of these ideas, if sensibly applied, combined and seen in their correct context, can make a contribution.

indicator of the problems of society and how we could do better #1

People are happier in a system of direct democracy

Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, Alois,Happiness, Economy and Institutions(January 2000). CESifo Working Paper Series No. 246.


a proposal for direct democracy from the same authors

Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, Alois,Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution(September 17, 2003). Zurich IEER Working Paper No. 167.


Voters are better informed when they have more influence

yesterday i was at the london climate camp meeting and social. it was a packed day of discussion, networking and plenty of fun. discussions about the 'rolling blockade' to greet any attempts to build aa new coal fired power station also really started to take shape - as all of the small groups we split into seemed to agree on the main core features and also came up with a few fantastic ideas, and i'm guessing that the other neighbourhoods who are also meeting before the manchester gathering later this month will also come up with something similar.

I also got a chance to start a discussion about how to talk about and motivate people to move towards a total change of system - basically how to get people to reject capitalism without them realising that's what they are doing. it also became clear that this might be way of persuading a lot of people who just won't listen to current climate messages to act on climate - again probably without realising that's what they're doing. these people are the 'prospectors' and 'settlers'.

the things is that now we've got an urgent and intellectual reason for action the will convince the pioneers (climate messages) and now security and esteem reasoning based partly on climate and the failure of growth based market economy with finite resources AND a solution that can be presented differently to fit in with the needs and motivations of each group (transition towns). not only that but as i said in the intro to this blog - i believe that the potential source of preventing runaway climate change is also likely to be a solution that can help people avoid it's worst effects, as well as be happier, healthier etc - it's a win whichever way things go.

I was lucky enough this week to be able to hear foremost climate scientist Prof James Hansen give evidence in support of 6 greenpeace activists who are arguing that they are not guilty of causing criminal damage to the kingnorth chimney last october, by painting the prime minister's name down the chimney in huge letters, because they were acting to prevent greater property damage from climate change. Hansen is, like many academics, softly spoken, modest but truly impressive. His confidence comes from nearly 3 decades studying the earth's climate and he is absolutley clear about coal and the UK, US and germany's special responsibility in slowing the return to coal by 'drawing a line in the sand'

Economic and social disadvantage can affect young citizens' voter turnout
Another indicator of how inequality, poverty and social exclusion replicates itself and deepens over generations. But also of why a system that only asks for occasional political involvement just can't work.

A simple assessment of a few words and phrases that might be useful / best avoided in climate & energy communications

http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf

a few presentations from a conference on communicating about climate & energy

http://piee.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/htm/Behavior/2007_becc_conference.php?ref=nav4

James Lovelock has started proposing some of the wacky geo-engineering ideas to prevent warming. He was an early proponent of nuclear power, and many followed and I'm sure over the next few years many will also follow this trend.

Clearly these are a distraction from the real task - reducing emissions, and some are so large scale and risky as to likely be worse than the problem they are trying to cure.

However, while these ideas are eccentric, some are even mad, they will unfortunately become necessary. If we we pass the tipping point around 2015 without sufficient emissions reductions, we will have to start adding one or more of these mad schemes to our, rather too gradual, emissions reductions. This is another reason why I believe that we WILL pass the tipping point. Those at the top of the economic pyramid will benefit not only from an extended period of business as usual, but also from the eventual need for these, hugely expensive, schemes.